I dunno. I liked the speech. It definitely didn't have any quick sound bites that the news could use to ramp up the ULTIMATE BATTLE AGAINST OBAMA AND ROMNEY though, so that's probably why they thought it sucked.

cameroncrazy1984:violentsalvation: Yeah people like Alter are bending the truth for the right. whatever, farkers.

He's a victim of the same mentality as the others. If Obama makes a good speech and Romney does something stupid like have his campaign bus drive around the venue honking, they don't have a story.

They all came across with the same basic statement, and it has nothing to do with Romney. The speech was too long, it had little or no new material, it was not good for soundbites or invigorating anyone, it was only good background noise during a cat-nap.

I haven't heard it myself, and I don't plan to. But it is entirely possible that Obama and/or the speechwriters were off and the speech did not equal what it was touted to be. THere isn't any bias here, IMHO.

violentsalvation:cameroncrazy1984: violentsalvation: Yeah people like Alter are bending the truth for the right. whatever, farkers.

He's a victim of the same mentality as the others. If Obama makes a good speech and Romney does something stupid like have his campaign bus drive around the venue honking, they don't have a story.

They all came across with the same basic statement, and it has nothing to do with Romney. The speech was too long, it had little or no new material, it was not good for soundbites or invigorating anyone, it was only good background noise during a cat-nap.

I haven't heard it myself, and I don't plan to. But it is entirely possible that Obama and/or the speechwriters were off and the speech did not equal what it was touted to be. THere isn't any bias here, IMHO.

Except that every single network has been statistically shown to be harsher on the President than any Republican.

Start here and advance. Every single Republican candidate had at least one period where the media was more positive than negative in regards to them. Obama never has.

violentsalvation:cameroncrazy1984: violentsalvation: Yeah people like Alter are bending the truth for the right. whatever, farkers.

He's a victim of the same mentality as the others. If Obama makes a good speech and Romney does something stupid like have his campaign bus drive around the venue honking, they don't have a story.

They all came across with the same basic statement, and it has nothing to do with Romney. The speech was too long, it had little or no new material, it was not good for soundbites or invigorating anyone, it was only good background noise during a cat-nap.

I haven't heard it myself, and I don't plan to. But it is entirely possible that Obama and/or the speechwriters were off and the speech did not equal what it was touted to be. THere isn't any bias here, IMHO.

I did watch it. Those criticisms are silly, by and large, and entirely subjective.

violentsalvation:I haven't heard it myself, and I don't plan to. But it is entirely possible that Obama and/or the speechwriters were off and the speech did not equal what it was touted to be. THere isn't any bias here, IMHO.

GAT_00:violentsalvation: cameroncrazy1984: violentsalvation: Yeah people like Alter are bending the truth for the right. whatever, farkers.

He's a victim of the same mentality as the others. If Obama makes a good speech and Romney does something stupid like have his campaign bus drive around the venue honking, they don't have a story.

They all came across with the same basic statement, and it has nothing to do with Romney. The speech was too long, it had little or no new material, it was not good for soundbites or invigorating anyone, it was only good background noise during a cat-nap.

I haven't heard it myself, and I don't plan to. But it is entirely possible that Obama and/or the speechwriters were off and the speech did not equal what it was touted to be. THere isn't any bias here, IMHO.

Except that every single network has been statistically shown to be harsher on the President than any Republican.

Start here and advance. Every single Republican candidate had at least one period where the media was more positive than negative in regards to them. Obama never has.

I think that study was a bit disingenuous, but it isn't trying to be. I mean, you are a Sunday political show host and you have to have Newt, Santorum, or Bachmann on your program. Other than point and laugh at them, what do you do? There is no intelligent discourse to be had. Nobody played hardball with them because some producers (I guess producers) wanted the viewers to see the derp unhindered. And the unwillingness to play hardball speaks of modern journalism sucking and not necessarily a bias.

meat0918:cameroncrazy1984: violentsalvation: . I mean, you are a Sunday political show host and you have to have Newt, Santorum, or Bachmann on your program. Other than point and laugh at them, what do you do?

Not be needlessly negative?

That's an option, right?

Not a chance.

Negativity = $$$$$

Precisely why I wish we had a BBC-like option here in the US. NPR is great, but even they had to come out and ask their audience if they wanted more fact-checking in articles.

GAT_00:violentsalvation: cameroncrazy1984: violentsalvation: Yeah people like Alter are bending the truth for the right. whatever, farkers.

He's a victim of the same mentality as the others. If Obama makes a good speech and Romney does something stupid like have his campaign bus drive around the venue honking, they don't have a story.

They all came across with the same basic statement, and it has nothing to do with Romney. The speech was too long, it had little or no new material, it was not good for soundbites or invigorating anyone, it was only good background noise during a cat-nap.

I haven't heard it myself, and I don't plan to. But it is entirely possible that Obama and/or the speechwriters were off and the speech did not equal what it was touted to be. THere isn't any bias here, IMHO.

Except that every single network has been statistically shown to be harsher on the President than any Republican.

Start here and advance. Every single Republican candidate had at least one period where the media was more positive than negative in regards to them. Obama never has.

God you are dumb. Let me put this simply... THE PRESIDENT ALWAYS RECEIVES HARSHER TREATMENT. They are responsible for more, they have more policy to criticize. Stop with your idiocy. Compare Obama coverage to 04 bush. Seriously you are dumb. The media didn't even investigate Obama dedicating his yearbook page to his dealer as a candidate, yet we all know how evil Ann romney is for riding horses. Grow up.

violentsalvation:GAT_00: violentsalvation: cameroncrazy1984: violentsalvation: Yeah people like Alter are bending the truth for the right. whatever, farkers.

He's a victim of the same mentality as the others. If Obama makes a good speech and Romney does something stupid like have his campaign bus drive around the venue honking, they don't have a story.

They all came across with the same basic statement, and it has nothing to do with Romney. The speech was too long, it had little or no new material, it was not good for soundbites or invigorating anyone, it was only good background noise during a cat-nap.

I haven't heard it myself, and I don't plan to. But it is entirely possible that Obama and/or the speechwriters were off and the speech did not equal what it was touted to be. THere isn't any bias here, IMHO.

Except that every single network has been statistically shown to be harsher on the President than any Republican.

Start here and advance. Every single Republican candidate had at least one period where the media was more positive than negative in regards to them. Obama never has.

I think that study was a bit disingenuous, but it isn't trying to be. I mean, you are a Sunday political show host and you have to have Newt, Santorum, or Bachmann on your program. Other than point and laugh at them, what do you do? There is no intelligent discourse to be had. Nobody played hardball with them because some producers (I guess producers) wanted the viewers to see the derp unhindered. And the unwillingness to play hardball speaks of modern journalism sucking and not necessarily a bias.

Hey farkhead. You remember my policy. Until you start citing your own posts you can go fark yourself. You cite nothing. Don't expect me to do your work. You can easily go Google 2008 media studies for the candidate or 2004 or 96 studies for the incumbent coverage.

Hey farkhead. You remember my policy. Until you start citing your own posts you can go fark yourself. You cite nothing. Don't expect me to do your work. You can easily go Google 2008 media studies for the candidate or 2004 or 96 studies for the incumbent coverage.

i cite my posts all the time. Don't get pissy just because you can't. And it's not MY work if you are the one making the assertion. Come on.

MyRandomName:God you are dumb. Let me put this simply... THE PRESIDENT ALWAYS RECEIVES HARSHER TREATMENT. They are responsible for more, they have more policy to criticize. Stop with your idiocy. Compare Obama coverage to 04 bush. Seriously you are dumb. The media didn't even investigate Obama dedicating his yearbook page to his dealer as a candidate, yet we all know how evil Ann romney is for riding horses. Grow up.

That was derptastic, even for you. Two "dumb"s means someone really got under your skin. And "the president always receives harsher treatment" followed by "The media didn't even investigate Obama" really pulls the shiatheap together.

cameroncrazy1984:meat0918: cameroncrazy1984: violentsalvation: . I mean, you are a Sunday political show host and you have to have Newt, Santorum, or Bachmann on your program. Other than point and laugh at them, what do you do?

Not be needlessly negative?

That's an option, right?

Not a chance.

Negativity = $$$$$

Precisely why I wish we had a BBC-like option here in the US. NPR is great, but even they had to come out and ask their audience if they wanted more fact-checking in articles.

Precisely why I try to only get my "news" from BBC, NPR or PBS. PBS kinda sucks though, but good investigative journalism.

violentsalvation:I haven't heard it myself, and I don't plan to. But it is entirely possible that Obama and/or the speechwriters were off and the speech did not equal what it was touted to be. THere isn't any bias here, IMHO.

He's not farking radiohead. You expected him to say something different from what he's been saying for the last six months? If they're jaded already, the press are going to hate the next 6 months of their lives.

Hey farkhead. You remember my policy. Until you start citing your own posts you can go fark yourself. You cite nothing. Don't expect me to do your work. You can easily go Google 2008 media studies for the candidate or 2004 or 96 studies for the incumbent coverage.

I thought your policy was to shiat out disgusting diarrhea for as long as you are allowed.

I haven't really seen evidence that the hard news section is particularly liberal, outside of the fact that Fox News says it so often that it magically becomes the truth. Now, I'm not talking about their commentators, I'm talking hard news. Jon Stewart did a piece showing Fox News' hard news reporters making very editorial comments clearly favoring the right and using their own commentators as a 'some people say' source. But has anyone done the same to MSNBC? If they are as liberal as everyone says they are, then surely its either been done or is going to sooner or later.

There is a difference between FOX and MSNBC, sure. Everyone knows that, they report to THEIR audience. But if you don't think journalistic standards as a whole have almost completely collapsed, and collapsed without a bias, you are a fool. There are large-assed Kardashians to watch, FFS.

There is a difference between FOX and MSNBC, sure. Everyone knows that, they report to THEIR audience. But if you don't think journalistic standards as a whole have almost completely collapsed, and collapsed without a bias, you are a fool. There are large-assed Kardashians to watch, FFS.

I haven't really seen evidence that the hard news section is particularly liberal, outside of the fact that Fox News says it so often that it magically becomes the truth. Now, I'm not talking about their commentators, I'm talking hard news. Jon Stewart did a piece showing Fox News' hard news reporters making very editorial comments clearly favoring the right and using their own commentators as a 'some people say' source. But has anyone done the same to MSNBC? If they are as liberal as everyone says they are, then surely its either been done or is going to sooner or later.

What's hard news? Election coverage? One of their main guys for that is Al Sharpton.

I haven't really seen evidence that the hard news section is particularly liberal, outside of the fact that Fox News says it so often that it magically becomes the truth. Now, I'm not talking about their commentators, I'm talking hard news. Jon Stewart did a piece showing Fox News' hard news reporters making very editorial comments clearly favoring the right and using their own commentators as a 'some people say' source. But has anyone done the same to MSNBC? If they are as liberal as everyone says they are, then surely its either been done or is going to sooner or later.

What's hard news? Election coverage? One of their main guys for that is Al Sharpton.